Britain has suspended ratification of the Croatia - EUSAA agreement and postponed a trip by Prince Andrew toCroatia, demanding that Croatia hand over GeneralBobetko. This is all utterly hypocritical and I amsurprised that Croatia has been so lenient on thematter. A couple of British news reports have followedthe British Foreign Office (FO) line, talking up thepossibility of international sanctions. Fortunatelyboth the EU and the United States appear not to betaking action, leaving Britain isolated on the matter.

Being British, perhaps I can give some advice on howto ensure Britain`s position remains uninfluential. Ihave assembled 5 arguments Croatian politicians,media, institutions and its people should use:

1. Britain is being hypocritical because it is notproposing any sanctions against Serbia, a country thatdoes not, unlike Croatia, bother co-operating at allwith The Hague. Hague Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Pontehas demanded Serbia hand over Ratko Mladic, whom sheclaims is being protected by the Yugoslavia military. Eleven indictees roam freely in Serbia. The HagueTribunal President has just reported Yugoslavia fornon-co-operation to the United Nations SecurityCouncil. Britain is effectively protecting peoplesuch as Ratko Mladic by drawing attention away fromSerbia and onto Croatia.

The question must be asked again and again: Why noBritish sanctions against Serbia?

2. If Britain is demanding that Croatia hands peopleover to The Hague, why do no t British military forcesin Bosnia-Herzegovina immediately arrest all indicteesstill at large such as Radovan Karadzic? Why isCroatia expected to arrest indictees but not Britain?

3. Britain is not impartial. The British FO supportedthe Serbs throughout the war, maintaining the armsembargo that allowed atrocities such as Vukovar andSrebrenica to occur. It is in the FO`s interest thatthe Croatia Chief of Staff ends up in The Hague sothat they can claim they were right all along. Theyclaimed that "all sides were equally guilty". Whatbetter way of `proving` this than the indictment ofthe former Croatian chief of staff? Britain is notimpartial and its sanctions should cease.

4. The Hague Tribunal has assembled a Council ofAppeals to hear Croatia`s case. Britain is in factinterfering with a legal process.

5. Croatia should demand an apology from Britain forits behaviors during the war. Croatia won`t get it,but it should help put Britain on the back foot.

The British FO is not popular in Britain; justrecently a foreign minister has had to apologise forBritish diplomat`s "lack of co-ordination" in supportto families of British victims of the terroristbombing in Bali. Furthermore, the British peopledespise hypocrisy. If the above arguments are usedstrongly and repeatedly, Britain`s position may lookuntenable, and the FO may face criticism from Britishvoices.

All Croatian officials dealing with Britain shouldimmediately read the recent British book by BrendanSimms, "Unfinest Hour: Britain and the destruction ofBosni a". This book sold very well in Britain and hadmany favourable reviews. It describes Britainsappalling pro-Serb role in the war inBosnia-Herzegovina. In particular, Simms describes theshocking role of the FO in the whole business. Thebook`s favourable reception attests to the decency ofmany British people.

The indictments against Bobetko and Gotovina are verymuch in the FO` s interest - they can use them to saycritics like Simms and others such as MargaretThatcher were wrong. The FO will say that the Croatchief of staff was a war criminal and Operation Stormwas nothing more than an `ethnic cleansing` exercise.

The whole business has served a useful purposehowever; it demonstrates that British policy isprecisely the same as in 1991 - pro-Serb. BrendanSimms points out that many in the higher echelons ofthe FO are still pro-Serb. Only the naļve andpolitically motivated believe past British criticismof Croatia has had anything to do with the quality ofCroatian democracy.

The British FO is not sparing Croatia criticism;Croatia should respond in the same way.